(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In your opinion, how strict should government regulation be on firearms? I'm creating a poll with multiple levels of control, pick your choice and feel free to specify why.



I live in a liberal, democratic state and hate the gun control laws. Personally, I feel that you should be able to have a silenced, fully automatic AR-15 with a 30 round mag in your residence. I shouldn't be restricted when it comes to protecting my family and property. I feel that a background check should be required, and a person has to have a clean record, no felonies. You would not be able to bring the gun off your property, unless you case it to take it for a repair or to the range.



As for open carry, I feel that you should be allowed to open carry a semi automatic handgun. It would have to be holstered and not concealed. The same background check would apply and you pay once for a lifetime permit.

”A free people ought to be armed.”
George Washington

You must login or register to view this content.[/CENTER]

As far as I'm concerned I don't want anyone having a gun at all.

I look at it this way. I am a liberal minded person. I'm generally decent, compassionate, and tolerant of other peoples actions and ideals. I am neither racist nor homophobic. I'm extremely rational and not in the slightest bit superstitious, and I have no history of mental illness. I still don't trust myself with a gun...

If I was armed and in a situation where I was being mugged, or even threatened by someone... DEAD! Simple as that. I have no physical strength, and while I'm a big guy I will injure myself more than my attacker. If in that situation, if I have a gun, that person is dead.

Now some would say that's self defense, but what about a heated argument. I've been stuck on a train with an EDL member before today and I swear if I had a gun he would not be leaving that train alive the sick nazi fúck. It takes nothing to pull a trigger.

So if I am capable of that... what is the average person capable of with a gun. Or worse still, one of the sick nazi fúcks I was talking about. Not all the EDL and BNP have criminal records and a history of violence. Some of them are careful and hide their political leanings. So when we start making guns avaliable to the public and all the extremist racist homophobes who have the education of a 4 year old and the compassion of Albert Fish get their hands on them is this a good thing? Hell no.

Ask yourself one question. Should this man ever be allowed to have a gun?



I rest my case. There's a reason guns are illegal, the average person is a dangerous fúcking moron.

Here in New York the gun laws are verging on unconstitutional, it's virtually impossible to receive a permit for a firearm. However firearm related crimes are still just as high as ever, why? Because dangerous fúcking morons don't care about what's legal or illegal. If they want to kill someone they can very easily obtain a firearm illegally and use it as they please, this leaves the law abiding citizens defenseless against such people.

I'm sure you've heard this argument before but what if students on the Virginia Tech campus were allowed to carry concealed firearms, do you believe that the armed gunman would have taken as many lives as he did? The students had no way of defending themselves against this man because of the restriction of guns on campus, and frankly the gunman didn't give two shits about the "legality" of what he was doing.

Don't get me wrong though, we shouldn't be putting guns in the hands of every citizen, but it should be somewhat accessible for those in the right state of mind.

Yeah, but it's perfectly legal to buy a gun somewhere else and bring it into New York... also it's not virtually impossible, it's really easy, it just takes a while. Now, while this argument is a good one, it only works because you have a gun trade in the first place. In UK it's actually really hard for most people to get their hands on a gun even criminals, and because it's so hard to get them into UK, only organised crime includes guns. I'm not going to be involved in organised crime so I don't care anywhere near as much, my worries however is will the average mugger, or even the average guy who's had a bad day and goes out on the piss then thinks I said something to his girlfriend... that guy might be perfectly nice sober. Those guys won't have guns, and they're the ones who could shoot me.


I think it's a stupid idea. Less people will die if we give teenagers with no experience with a firearm a weapon that can snuff the life out of people in a second then let them fire them while they're scared and panicked. Yeah, that'll help, it won't just kill more people in the damn crossfire and panic will it? You know what would have made the Virginia Tech shooting not happen? If NO-ONE had guns.


They already are in UK. No-one has them. There isn't a single citizen in my country in the right state of mind to have the power over life or death at their fingertips.

I live in california here we're allowed to own guns I personally own a couple so do my family members. It's been proven if you have guns allowed crime rates go down simply for the fact they don't want to get shot. Put it this way if your going to break into someone's house are you going to want to break into the one where they have a gun or where they don't. The simple answer is of course the one without a gun because you don't want to get shot.

Actually, gun crime goes up in areas where there are less restrictions on guns.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14908[/ATTACH]

Oh but don't worry. Lying seems to be what you do best. Don't worry about having statistics or facts to back up your claims, say any old shit and there's bound to be a moron on the internet that will believe you.

While I do see a trend in some states, I feel that there are more factors to gun crime than gun laws alone. For example: gang presence, percent of people in low-income areas of the city, percent of people in the city, and state GDP (there are more things people have a desire to steal, high class division between rich and poor.)

California is one of the strictest states, but still has 20-50. It meets all my criteria.

North Dakota, which is one of the least populated and gun-leniant states has nil to none.

While I do see correlation in some states, I do not think it is a rule for all. I would say about half.

hey mr trying to be smart you didn't take population into it. Nice fail

Actually that picture does take that into account.